ORDER : Arun Monga, J. 1. Quashing of an FIR No.61/2024 dated 10.04.2024 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jodhpur (City East) for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC is sought herein. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case file. 3. The petitioner Nos.3 and 6 are sisters-in-law and 4 and 5 are their husbands, thus brothers in law, of the complainant. A bare reading of the FIR shows that no clear and specific prima facie case against them is made out. 4. Translated version of FIR is as below:- “1. This is to state that I, the petitioner, was married to Kamlesh, son of Mr. Ram Narayan, resident of C-13, Saraswati Nagar, Yasani First Phase, Jodhpur, on 07.05.2017. The marriage was conducted according to all Hindu religious customs and traditions at the Arya Samaj, Ratanada, Jodhpur. 2. Before the marriage, on 03.05.2017, my husband Kamlesh, along with my three sisters-in-law—Manju, Sarita, and Suman—met at my house, along with their husbands, Ranjit, Ganpat, and Mohit, as well as my in-laws, Naini Devi. They planned a betrothal ceremony, which would enhance our status and reputation in society. Consequently, a betrothal event was scheduled for 10.05.2017 at Indana Hotel, Jodhpur. Prior to the betrothal, Mr. Ram Narayan handed a handwritten note to my father detailing the gifts to be given, including names and relations, and stated that they had no additional demands apart from the wedding. After meeting me, they expressed their approval and suggested that we should marry quickly in a simple manner at the Arya Samaj since Kamlesh had to return to Canada soon. Subsequently, on 05.05.2017, my father-in-law and Mr. Bhagwan, who is Kamlesh's maternal uncle, visited and presented a token for the engagement. They confirmed the wedding for 07.05.2017 at Arya Samaj, Ratanada, Jodhpur, and the marriage took place according to all religious customs in the presence of family members. After the marriage, my father-in-law, Kamlesh, and sister-in-law Manju visited my home and requested that the marriage should not be announced publicly yet. They planned to have a grand engagement celebration to keep the relatives happy, ensuring that no one would be upset. Following this, Mr. After the marriage, my father-in-law, Kamlesh, and sister-in-law Manju visited my home and requested that the marriage should not be announced publicly yet. They planned to have a grand engagement celebration to keep the relatives happy, ensuring that no one would be upset. Following this, Mr. Ram Narayan assured my father and, as per his instructions, provided various gold and silver jewelry and expensive outfits as gifts for my husband, in-laws, and sisters-in-law, along with silk quilts and cash for close relatives. 3. After the engagement function, my father-in-law expressed his happiness and mentioned that since Kamlesh had to return to Canada, they would formally complete the wedding rituals when he returned, inviting all relatives for the celebration. My father responded by saying that the marriage had already taken place. In response, my father-in-law stated that they had solidified the relationship through the marriage but would hold the official ceremony in front of all community members. Consequently, the wedding was scheduled for 22.01.2018 at Bhandari Farmhouse, Surpura, where guests were welcomed and honored. Following this, Kamlesh and I performed the Hindu marriage rituals at my residence, where my father generously provided gold and silver jewelry, outfits, gifts, and cash according to his means. The details of the gold and silver jewelry, outfits, and other items given during the engagement and wedding are attached with this report. 4. After the wedding, I arrived at my in-laws' home at C-13, Saraswati Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur. The very next day, my husband, in-laws, and all three sisters-in-law expressed their dissatisfaction, claiming that my father had not arranged the wedding well. My sisters-in-law accused me of neglecting them and their husbands during the wedding, stating that they expected a proper dowry reflecting the status of an NRI, including Rs.25,00,000 and fifty tolas of gold. They felt humiliated by what they considered a meager celebration, which tarnished their reputation in society. Consequently, my husband, in-laws, and sisters-in-law began to taunt me both directly and indirectly. During the wedding, I received around Rs.35,000 in blessings for touching feet and other rituals, but my sister-in-law Manju took that money from me. After offering prayers to the deities, my husband and in-laws demanded all the gold and silver jewelry I had received as gifts from my family, justifying it by saying that it was customary for a bride's jewelry to be kept with the mother-in-law. After offering prayers to the deities, my husband and in-laws demanded all the gold and silver jewelry I had received as gifts from my family, justifying it by saying that it was customary for a bride's jewelry to be kept with the mother-in-law. They took all my jewelry and gave it to my mother-in-law, who still retains possession of it, and despite my requests, I have not received it back. 5. After the wedding, my husband and I traveled to Canada on a tourist visa on January 29, 2018. During the flight, he complained about the disparity between the gifts given during the engagement and those during the wedding, noting that no cash was provided either. He expressed disappointment, mentioning that he had expected at least Rs.25,00,000 and fifty tolas of gold. After arriving in Canada, my in-laws and sisters-in-law, Manju and Suman, began to call me, criticizing me for not meeting their expectations regarding gifts and dowry. My sisters-in-law accused me of ignoring them during the wedding and threatened that they wouldn’t allow me to live peacefully. My in-laws insisted that since their son Kamlesh is an NRI, he must repay the family’s investment in his education, asserting that my father had promised Rs.1,00,000 and 50 tolas of gold. They warned me that if I didn’t comply, the marriage would not last. My sisters-in-law and their husbands would call my husband, pressuring him to take a stand against me, repeatedly filling his ears with their demands. This led to my husband physically assaulting me and using abusive language, while also insulting my parents, all in pursuit of the Rs.35,00,000 and 50 tolas of gold they insisted I provide. 6. In this context, one day, my elder brother-in-law, Ranjeet, called my husband, including my middle brother-in-law, Ganpat, on the conference call. Ranjeet asked if my husband had managed to collect the money and gold from me, to which my husband replied that he had not. Ranjeet then remarked that my husband had truly become a "slave to his wife" and that he should not have taken me to Canada; he should have left me in Jodhpur. Ranjeet suggested that if I had any sense, I would have arranged for the money and gold. In Canada, my brothers-in-law, along with my sisters-in-law, Manju and Suman, continued to provoke my husband, encouraging him to be harsh and physically abusive towards me. Ranjeet suggested that if I had any sense, I would have arranged for the money and gold. In Canada, my brothers-in-law, along with my sisters-in-law, Manju and Suman, continued to provoke my husband, encouraging him to be harsh and physically abusive towards me. They constantly plotted various schemes to fulfill their unreasonable and illegal demands. 7. When I returned to India after four months, my in-laws, along with my brother-in-law Ranjeet and Ganpat, did not allow me to live peacefully. They called me derogatory names like "black," "beggar," "unlucky," and "cursed," and they demanded money and gold daily, mocking me by saying that I was just a beggar. During this time, my husband, Kamlesh, claimed he needed money and asked me for funds. When I suggested he ask his father for money, my in-laws became enraged and began physically assaulting me, threatening that if I didn’t send money to Kamlesh, I would face severe consequences. Scared and desperate to save my life, I transferred Rs.50,000 to my husband from my ICICI Bank account in Jodhpur on 03.09.2018, without informing my parents. They blamed me for my husband's failure to secure permanent residency in Canada, calling me unlucky and subjecting me to further harassment. My husband also pressured me to bring money, encouraged by the negative remarks from my in-laws, which further strained my relationship with my parents. 8. After some time, I went to Canada (Vancouver) for the second time. During this period, my in-laws, along with my brother-in-law Ranjeet and Ganpat, continued to pressure my husband. They advised him that if he couldn't extract money easily, he should be more forceful. When I mentioned wanting to have a child, my husband claimed he had responsibilities and couldn't think about having a baby yet; he needed to focus on increasing his income first. Under pressure, I started a private job in April 2020. Despite my salary being taken by my husband, who insisted that I was earning because of him, he still pressured me to bring money and gold from my father. On July 20, 2021, my husband presented our joint income and used both our savings to mortgage a property at 155.32633 Simon Ave, Allwood Street, Abbotsford, purchasing it and entering the home on July 26, 2021. On July 20, 2021, my husband presented our joint income and used both our savings to mortgage a property at 155.32633 Simon Ave, Allwood Street, Abbotsford, purchasing it and entering the home on July 26, 2021. However, when I brought up having a child again, he deflected the conversation, citing his responsibilities and threatening to send me back to India if I didn’t get money from my father. 9. During this time, my husband forced me to take private jobs at three different locations. In the first week of October 2022, while I was observing the Navratri fasts, he asked me to clean the garden. I gently explained that I was already managing household chores and working at three jobs, and that I would clean once I returned. In response, Kamlesh started hitting me, grabbed my legs, and threw me to the ground, injuring my back. He also took my phone, as he had access to my accounts and passwords. On October 3, 2022, despite my refusal, he transferred $2,000 from my account to his, insisting that since I was in Canada because of him, I had no claim over that money and that he would do as he pleased with it. 10. On December 31, 2022, for the New Year, I went with my husband to a hotel in the U.S. and returned to Canada the next day. Soon after, my husband received a call from his family, and he went outside. When he returned, he began to assault me for money. In his anger, he called my father and handed me the phone, stating that he had hit me because I hadn’t provided him with 2.5 million rupees and 50 tolas of gold. This was the first time I mentioned the physical abuse and other incidents to my father, sending him photographs of my injuries. Upon learning about the abuse, my parents visited my in-laws, but my in-laws pretended to be unaware and began plotting ways to continue harassing me. 11. One day, my elder sister-in-law, Manju, called to inform me that our brother-in-law, Ranjit, had received a message from the deity, stating that there was bad energy (apshagun) surrounding us. My father-in-law also called to say that my maternal uncle's spirit had visited and warned that our home had vastu dosh (flaws). Such comments instigated my husband to pressure me into selling our house, despite my objections. My father-in-law also called to say that my maternal uncle's spirit had visited and warned that our home had vastu dosh (flaws). Such comments instigated my husband to pressure me into selling our house, despite my objections. In May 2023, against my will, we listed the house for sale, which we had jointly purchased. After selling it for $87,708, my husband transferred $8,000 to pay his credit card without my consent on June 8, 2023, along with $1,500 and $77,000 into his personal accounts, totaling $86,500 taken without my knowledge. When I confronted him about this transaction, he became angry, claiming the money was his and that I hadn't contributed anything. Additionally, my husband, along with my in-laws, conspired to secretly file for divorce at the Supreme Court of British Columbia on June 8, 2023. On June 13, he deceived me into coming to collect my purse, but instead, I was served with divorce papers. When I realized my passport was missing, I discovered that my husband had hidden it. After informing my parents, they went to confront my in-laws, and I was told by my father-in-law to look in a specific drawer, where I eventually found my passport hidden away. 12. After that, Bhagwan Ji, my father-in-law, and my father explained to my husband, Kamlesh, that on June 21, 2023, he should withdraw the divorce case. He typed a "Notice of Discontinuance" and sent it via WhatsApp through his lawyer, Pamela Vasti, but did not present it in court. From June 13 to June 29, 2023, my husband prevented me from returning home, forcing me to stay at a friend's house, which caused me severe depression and stress. When my in-laws came to Canada on June 30, my father-in-law and my father repeatedly urged my husband to reconsider. Consequently, on July 6, 2023, my husband presented the "Notice of Discontinuance" in court, effectively halting the divorce proceedings. My in-laws stayed with us for six months, during which they, along with my sister-in-law Manju and others, blamed me instead of supporting Kamlesh. They insisted that if I wanted to lead a happy life, I should somehow procure money and gold from my parents. When my in-laws returned to India on December 15, 2023, it was planned for me to accompany them, but they schemed to delay my return with Kamlesh by two months. They insisted that if I wanted to lead a happy life, I should somehow procure money and gold from my parents. When my in-laws returned to India on December 15, 2023, it was planned for me to accompany them, but they schemed to delay my return with Kamlesh by two months. My husband deceitfully booked tickets for us on March 18, 2024, from Vancouver to Delhi, and misled my father by sending the ticket details via WhatsApp on January 27, 2024, assuring him that everything was fine. 13. After my in-laws returned to India, my husband continued to demand money and gold from me, insisting that I should ask my father for it. When I pointed out that he had taken all my earnings, he insisted that he wanted a lump sum amount, not small amounts. I eventually decided not to ask my father for money. t is important to note that during my stay in Canada, my husband had linked my mobile to his, without my knowledge or consent, and repeatedly sent messages to his relatives while deleting them afterward. I only found out about this on March 2, 2024, when I confronted him about it. He casually mentioned that he often did this and would read my messages before logging out. This made me very upset, and I took a screenshot of the situation and logged him out. On the same day, Kamlesh again deceived me by sending divorce papers to my office at TD Canada Trust Bank, located at 32435 South Fraser Way. 14. That my husband, mother-in-law, sister-in-law Manju and Suman Nandoi Ranjit ji and Ganpat ji, just to satisfy their money hunger, took us out of trust, married us and received various types of items in the name of engagement. And also received jewellery, cash etc. on marriage. He kept all my wife's wealth with himself and subjected me to deliberate cruelty and torture by continuously demanding dowry. My in-laws beat me up and harassed me for sending fifty thousand rupees to Kamada. Incentivized my husband to beat me and my husband Due to the above motivation and his own fear, he brutally beat me and snatched my money from me several times and also transferred 2000 Honors from my account to his own account. My in-laws beat me up and harassed me for sending fifty thousand rupees to Kamada. Incentivized my husband to beat me and my husband Due to the above motivation and his own fear, he brutally beat me and snatched my money from me several times and also transferred 2000 Honors from my account to his own account. Apart from this, my share of the huge amount received from the lease of the flat was also usurped by me with the aim of causing serious harm to Sadeep's name and me and finally, by hatching a conspiracy, I started the process of divorce again and used me as the petitioner for my selfish agenda. Tortured continuously. Therefore, by submitting the report, it is requested that my friend Kamlesh (1 (250) 816-0296) Office Number – (1 (236) 988-4096) Office 1st Address – 6204 PRASER SI. VANCOUVER, and other address 5705 VICTORIA DI, VANCOUVER My husband's e-mail address - kamlesh.sen@outlook.com Maas Naini Devi alias Neha (6375792373), Father-in-law Ramnarayan (7597060774), Sister-in-law Manju (9823184110) and Tuman (8949235042) By filing a case against Nandoi Ranjit ji (9673671389), Ganpat Ki (9680066994), taking proper legal action, getting them punished for the crime committed by them and providing justice to me.” 5. No doubt FIR is at the instance of the complainant and to the extent of having once informed the police with regard to commission of the crime, she is a stakeholder. However, in matters of crimes, which are against the society or woman representing their gender as a whole, once the information, in respect of the alleged crime has been taken note of by the prosecution, thereafter, it becomes the responsibility and duty of the State to prosecute the accused. Therefore, once the prosecution has taken over, the role of the complainant is confined to render assistance to the prosecution and not conduct a parallel prosecution on her own. In this view of the matter, when the State is represented in the case through the learned PP. notice of the petition to the complainant is not necessary and is, therefore, dispensed with. 6. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1625/2024), decided on 04.07.2024, relevant thereof is reproduced hereinabove:- “11. The third section invoked in the FIR is Section 498-A of the IPC. 6. In somewhat similar circumstances, I have had an occasion to render a judgment in case titled Amit Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1625/2024), decided on 04.07.2024, relevant thereof is reproduced hereinabove:- “11. The third section invoked in the FIR is Section 498-A of the IPC. To better understand its application to the petitioners, the said section is reproduced below :- 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means— (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.” 12. Having perused the section, ibid, the recourse the complainant can take at best is the explanation given in sub-section (b) of Section 498-A, which envisages a willful act of such nature that it causes harassment to the wife/complainant herein or coercion causing duress to meet an unlawful demand for property or valuable security. 13. When the contents of the FIR are read in light of the ingredients of Section 498-A(b), it is apparent that the same does not make out any case in the absence of any allegations as per the nature of this section. 14. In the aforesaid context, reference may be had to the judgment rendered in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it has also been observed:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , it has also been observed:- “32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. 36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. Furthermore, in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr, (2014) 8 SCC 273 , it has been observed/held thus :- “4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 15. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2022) 6 SCC 599 , Supreme Court reiterated as under: “17. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. The above mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analyzing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in- laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 16. No doubt, section 498-A, ibid, was introduced to protect women from dowry harassment and cruelty by their husbands and in-laws. However, an increased tendency to implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial disputes, without proper scrutiny, for collateral gains, leads to potential misuse of the same. 17. There is another aspect of the matter, which is, that the implications of such misuse may even extend to the complainant. For the complainant, a frivolous case may divert attention from genuine issues and undermine the credibility of legitimate complaints. On the other hand, for the accused, especially the relatives of the husband, as the petitioners herein, it leads to unwarranted legal battles, social stigma, and emotional distress. It is thus crucial to establish a prima facie case against the accused to prevent the misuse of legal provisions and ensure that the judicial process is not exploited. 18. General and omnibus allegations, which are broad and non-specific, often do not withstand legal scrutiny. Such allegations, if unchecked, can lead to the misuse of the process of law. This misuse could result in unnecessary trials that can have long-term ramifications for all parties involved. A word of judicial caution thus may not be out of place here, urging the learned trial courts to avoid proceeding against the husband’s relatives without a clear and specific prima facie case. The intent and duty of the court ought to prevent the legal harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty. 19. A word of judicial caution thus may not be out of place here, urging the learned trial courts to avoid proceeding against the husband’s relatives without a clear and specific prima facie case. The intent and duty of the court ought to prevent the legal harassment of individuals have no substantial involvement in the alleged matrimonial cruelty. 19. Moreover, the learned courts ought to be mindful that long-term ramifications of proceeding with weak or baseless cases cause a burden on judicial system, miscarriage of justice, and a detrimental impact on the accused’s personal and professional lives. It also risks discrediting the genuine purpose of Section 498A IPC, which is, to provide protection and justice to victims of dowry harassment and matrimonial cruelty. While Section 498A IPC is crucial for protecting women from matrimonial cruelty and dowry harassment, its misuse through broad and unsubstantiated allegations against the husband’s relatives must be checked. Courts must ensure that allegations are thoroughly scrutinized, and prima facie evidence is established before proceeding with trials. This approach not only preserves the integrity of the judicial system but also protects innocent individuals from unnecessary legal and social hardships. 20. Bare facts in the present case reflect misuse of Section 498A IPC. Petitioners are not directly involved in the matrimonial issues, but yet, based on broad, non-specific allegations have been implicated in the FIR. 21. In light of the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No.0285/2021, dated 24.07.2021, under Sections 498-A, 406 and 323 of IPC is quashed qua the petitioners with consequences to follow. 22. The trial against the other co-accused shall continue as before in accordance with law.” 7. In my opinion the judgment rendered in Amit Bhardwaj ibid relying upon the parameters and principles laid down by the Apex Court, is equally applicable qua petitioner Nos.3 to 6 in the present case as well. I see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner Nos.3 to 6. 8. Reference may also be had to Apex Court judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273 ]. 6. As stated above, ex facie, the contents of the FIR do not establish any culpability on the part of the petitioner Nos.3 to 6, who are the sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law (husbands of sisters-in-law) of the respondent No.2-complainant. 9. State of Bihar and Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273 ]. 6. As stated above, ex facie, the contents of the FIR do not establish any culpability on the part of the petitioner Nos.3 to 6, who are the sisters-in-law and brothers-in-law (husbands of sisters-in-law) of the respondent No.2-complainant. 9. I am of the view that such bald allegations, lacking any specific particulars, do not make out even a prima case against them. These allegations appear to have been made with a collateral motive stemming from matrimonial acrimony. 10. As an upshot, the instant petition is allowed qua petitioner Nos.3 to 6. The FIR No.61/2024, dated 10.04.2024 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Jodhpur (City East) and consequential proceedings qua the petitioner Nos.3 to 6 are hereby quashed. 11. So far as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, I do not find it a fit case to exercise inherent powers to quash the FIR. 12. In the premise, it is directed that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 shall join the investigation. However, if during the investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that there is any incriminating material to warrant their arrests, then a prior notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. (now Section 35 of BNSS) shall be given to them to enable them to seek legal remedy in accordance with law. Reference may also be had to Apex Court judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273 ]. 13. Disposed of accordingly qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2. 14. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.